BREAKING: Hillary Clinton Refuses to Acknowledge Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Here’s a thought experiment. How viable would a GOP presidential candidate be if he expressed doubts about the sanctity of Americans’ fundamental right to freedom of speech. What if he said he believes in a more nuanced reading of the First Amendment, one in which “reasonable regulations” were needed to ensure peace in public discourse. Answer: it wouldn’t be pretty. That candidate would be the subject of no end of derision and criticism by the media and bien pensant commentariat. His candidacy would be declared, if not dead, certainly in mortal jeopardy. We’d be flooded with navel gazing think pieces on the imminent threat his candidacy posed to fundamental civil rights. So why isn’t the Mao jacketed, inevitable Democrat candidate facing the same withering fire for her failure this morning to support the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment? . . .

Is that a trick question? Here, as reported by The Washington Post, is the exchange she had with her former employee and Clinton Foundation contributor, George Stephanopoulos on his Sunday ABC gabfest:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s talk about the Second Amendment. As you know, Donald Trump has also been out on the stump talking about the Second Amendment and saying you want to abolish the Second Amendment. I know you reject that. But I want to ask you a specific question: Do you believe that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right — that it’s not linked to service in a militia?

CLINTON: I think that for most of our history there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment until the decision by the late Justice [Antonin] Scalia. And there was no argument until then that localities and states and the federal government had a right — as we do with every amendment — to impose reasonable regulations. So I believe we can have common-sense gun-safety measures consistent with the Second Amendment. And, in fact, what I have proposed is supported by 90 percent of the American people and more than 75 percent of responsible gun owners. So that is exactly what I think is constitutionally permissible and, once again, you have Donald Trump just making outright fabrications, accusing me of something that is absolutely untrue. But I’m going to continue to speak out for comprehensive background checks; closing the gun-show loophole; closing the online loophole; closing the so-called Charleston loophole; reversing the bill that Senator [Bernie] Sanders voted for and I voted against, giving immunity from liability to gun makers and sellers. I think all of that can and should be done, and it is, in my view, consistent with the Constitution.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And, and the Heller decision also says there can be some restrictions. But that’s not what I asked. I said, “Do you believe their conclusion that the right to bear arms is a constitutional right?”

CLINTON: If it is a constitutional right, then it — like every other constitutional right — is subject to reasonable regulations. And what people have done with that decision is to take it as far as they possibly can and reject what has been our history from the very beginning of the republic, where some of the earliest laws that were passed were about firearms. So I think it’s important to recognize that reasonable people can say, as I do, responsible gun owners have a right. I have no objection to that. But the rest of the American public has a right to require certain kinds of regulatory, responsible actions to protect everyone else.

If it is a constitutional right. Nice. She assiduously avoids conceding that Americans have a fundamental, enumerated civil right to keep and bear arms in order to defend themselves and their families. Yet some of the palace guard still manage to write — apparently with a straight face — that Fox News is somehow to blame for the surge in gun sales.

A credentialed constitutional scholar of my acquaintance dscribes this tactic: “All rights are subject to reasonable restrictions. My proposal (whatever it is) is a restriction of that right. Therefore it is reasonable.”

And its corollary: “I am a reasonable person. I would not want a gun, and certainly would never actually shoot someone; no reasonable person would. You shot someone, that is not reasonable, you are guilty as charged.”

I have to agree with that too. Hillary, if nothing else, it a robotic parrot and she has said this in several campaign speeches. There is nothing new. Stephanopoulos was simply giving leading questions to get her campaign message through. She still believes that Bill Clintons AW ban made a difference when then AG Janet Reno published a report saying it did not do a damn thing. At least she has been more honest lately and basically wants to ban all private sales and have a de facto ban by letting the trial lawyers win for zero reason.

Indeed. Clinton’s disdain for and refusal to acknowledge the rights enshrined in the 2A have been on very public display for more than two decades. Shit, this is not even “news”, much less “breaking news”.

Again with this “Heller got it wrong, it’s not an individual right” meme! Ok, Hillary everyone knows you count as an anti-gun zealot. In point of fact everyone knows this woman, Hillary Clinton, is every bit the anti gun statist that Crazy Bernie is. They are determined to destroy the Second Amendment on their way to ripping down the borders and handing out free money from the treasury to anyone they think might vote for them. If either of them gets elected, it will ultimately result in the destruction of this once great nation!

The destruction and dismantling of this once great nation began six or eight decades ago, and has proceeded unimpeded since, regardless of who was in the White House. No matter who gets selected in November, don’t expect anything to change, other than perhaps the speed at which America circles the drain.

Of all the writing of the time,of it’s inception that is, the constitutional bill of rights is very easy to understand. Honestly an inability to understand “shall not be infringed” should be grounds for a special mentally handicapped parking permit on ones car.

The Libertarian Party – Johnson is not exactly a balls-out defender of the Second Amendment, and Bill Weld is an anti-2A Establishment Masshole. So yeah, vote for the Liberaltarian (spelling deliberate) who will put Hillary in the White House.

You think a vote for YOUR Libertarian Candidate will be worth anything?

There can be a Libertarian, Green, Red, Yellow, Purple, Playground, or any other Candidate you want to vote for, a vote for anybody other than Trump, WILL BE a PROXY VOTE for HILDABEAST!
Besides, Your Libertarian Candidates for Prez and Vice Prez aren’t worth much either.
Don’t quite know how a Libertarian can be AGAINST 2A!!!!!

We have those kind of trolls here in Canada, who decided during our last election to “punish” the Conservative government in office for not doing “enough” on gun rights by voting for the Liberals. The Liberals won, who will most likely proceed in the future to enact further gun regulation.

Even worse are the Canadian military folks who were legitimately mad at the Tories for their mishandling of Veterans, and so voted for the Party who irreversibly wrecked the military back in the 1960s.

She shouldn’t get a single vote from anyone on TTAG, and she sure as hell won’t get mine. She also shouldn’t get a single vote because she left Navy Seals to die, lied about being under sniper fire, “lost” 30,000 emails, etc.

Yeah? But I’ll bet she gets over a million votes from people not otherwise eligible and maybe up to 5 from the same person… Who’s counting anyways when 10% of the democratic primaries are diluted from superpacs.

The “Charleston loophole?” You mean the thing that keeps background checks from disappearing into a black hole, without oversight, responsibility, or recourse to the potential buyer? I’m sure this caustic bitch would love to be able to deny gun sales through inaction. It doesn’t require any actual action, and everything could always be “Pending, check back in 10 days” in perpetuity.

“Shall not be infringed.” This is the only place in the Constitution that you find this phrase because the founding fathers understood this is the most important freaking ammendment there is. Not up for regulation or debate. Don’t like it, then go through the proper channels to get it nullified. At that point expect to be dragged out of office and convicted of treason which will probably spur civil war 2. Gun owners vs non gun owners. Who do you think will win?

Under a president Clinton we will need to create sanctuary cities, hell, maybe states, for firearms owners. Why not? it’s obviously ok because it’s currently being practiced for immigration laws and drug laws (Colorado, Oregon and Washington) with no consequences. Except I’m sure that would be seen by her administration as a different situation.

Directly north of Portland until you get to the outskirts of Olympia, is actually quite conservative. Olympia to Everett are then super liberal, then you get a mixed bag until you hit the border. Not so sure we should just give away huge portions of the west coast just to exile a couple bad actors. Maybe just put the cities on probation until they learn to obey the constitution.

I hope all those planning on withholding your vote for Trump or voting for someone with no chance at all of winning are paying close attention. This constitutional denier would like nothing more and generations to come will be forced to live with the consequences of your misplaced moral stand.

Mindsets like this will result in the loss of our Second Amendment freedoms. Sorry, that’s pretty blunt, but every recent election has been decided by very narrow margins. Every single vote counts. Literally, not figuratively. A vote for anyone other than the Republican nominee is effectively a vote for Hillary.

Yes, you can be of the opinion that a President Trump is an unknown and therefore risky. You can have any other opinion about him you want, but understand: President Clinton Will Take Your Guns. That is a certainty. She has said she will permit lawsuits against gun manufacturers. She has bemoaned the loss of the AWB. Pelosi, Bloomberg, McAuliffe, and a slew of others have finally come out and stated forthrightly: we hate your right. It threatens us and we will take it away or shave it down to nothing.

Ah, but is every single vote counted? In an age of unverifiable, unauditable electronic voting, it’s adorable that so many people still trust the system. Every election cycle, we get a few peeks behind the curtain to see how foolproof and reliable these systems are – a county that reports more votes cast than there are people living there, a precinct that records no votes at all for several hours, or voting machines that are conveniently disabled for unknown technical reasons. My favorite are the “recounts” that somehow return different results – it’s just a number in a database, how the heck does it change when there’s a recount?

The fact is, whoever controls these machines controls the outcome of the election, and there’s absolutely no way to verify the results. When your state’s Secretary of State certifies the results, he’s just rubber-stamping a number that some computer crapped out, that may or may not have any bearing on the actual votes cast.

This is, in my opinion, the biggest threat facing our system of government, and nobody seems to care. There exist electronic voting systems that produce auditable, verifiable paper trails, but almost nobody uses them, opting instead for untraceable, black-box systems with weak security. Isn’t that just a little bit suspicious? Why would you not choose the more trustworthy option, unless your goal was to undermine the system?

So you’re gonna refuse to vote? No politician currently in the running truly has principles. So you’re gonna do the lazy thing and refuse to take some responsibility for your government, all the while claiming to have the moral high ground by taking a stand on principle? You’re pathetic….

“So you’re gonna do the lazy thing and refuse to take some responsibility for your government, all the while claiming to have the moral high ground by taking a stand on principle?”

Help me understand this logic, if there’s an election with only two candidates, and you really don’t like either of them, you should choose one anyways? If I don’t like either one or don’t have good enough sense of who to pick, should I choose the one who promises the most “free” stuff? What if both candidates are both proven liars?

“You’re pathetic….”

Antonin Scalia said something along the lines of, I don’t attack people, I attack ideas. Perhaps there’s something you can take away from this.

It is funny there are people who believe Trump, will protect gun rights and the second. Trump, has and still does support gun control and AWB. We are stuck voting for either a turd or a douche. We don’t have any good choices.

The NRA only endorsed him because he is a Rep supposedly, back in 09 he was a registered Dem, and a NRA member. Just knowing that alone we know he is a flip floppier switching between Rep and Dem. Even the NRA isn’t entirely on our side. In his book, “The America We Deserve” Trump wrote that he supports a ban on assault weapons and a slightly longer waiting period to buy a gun. No matter which one you pick, you will get a pro AWB president!

Trump is a wild man. McConnell already the Repubs will change Trump, not the other way round. Same as what they have done to all the conservative activist newly elected Repubs. House will be no different. Essentially, Trump will end up like Jesse Ventura; no coattails, no one in the legislature who will work with him. If Trump only serves one term and nominates one SC justice, he will be successful. Congress will need to come up with a way to neutralize Trump’s attempt to rule through executive dictate (which he will try).

90% of the people wouldn’t agree with the statement “The sky is often blue.” So whenever someone claims 90% of the people agree on anything, you know that person just pulled that number out of their arse.
(I’m not even sure you could get 75% concurrence with a blue sky.)

She evaded the question twice. Stephanopoulos is asking because she previously said “the Supreme Court got it wrong on the Second Amendment.” Honesty about her beliefs, no matter how radical and bigoted, would be refreshing. But of course, she has to act like a politician by prevaricating–and she has to look like one by wearing a Mao jacket.

At least a plurality of the White anti-gunners I’ve encounter over the years were racists, if not outright White supremacists. They’re not afraid of guns. They’re afraid of Black and Brown (and often Jewish) people with guns.

Hell, since she doesn’t believe that America needs to be guarded against the rest of the world; ie, top secret emails available for any nerd hacker. Why would you think she believes anyone should be able to protect themselves?

Instead of just attacking Hillary like everyone else, I want to respond to something else.

“What if he said he believes in a more nuanced reading of the First Amendment, one in which “reasonable regulations” were needed to ensure peace in public discourse.”

That’s exactly what’s happening, it’s just not the GOP doing it. Safe spaces are popping up across college campuses; people are filing legal complaints against trump supporters for hate speech, and in some places, referring to someone by their apparent gender is illegal if it doesn’t match their preferred gender identity. It’s okay for a BLM activist to advise all white people to kill themselves, but it’s not okay to say “all lives matter”.

It’s not okay to refute feelings with facts.

The left has gone so far in protecting people against hate speech and offense that all speech is becoming limited.

George Carlin warned us about this.

George Orwell warned us about this.

Yes, I’m a 2nd amendment absolutist…all regulations are wrong. I want to be able to order machine guns out of the Sears catalog and have them shipped to my house.

But, it’s not the only issue we’re facing.

Freedom is under attack. All of it.

We’ve long said that the 2nd amendment protects the others. It’s not working too well right now.

But the fight this year is largely about freedom…and those who want to take it from us vs. those who might still kind of think some of it is okay.

I think Trump is probably a sociopath who would step on his own children to get something he wants, but at least he’s the lesser of two evils.

In Hillary Clinton’s own words:If it is a constitutional right, then it — like every other constitutional right — is subject to reasonable regulations. Localities and states and the federal government have a right — as we do with every amendment — to impose reasonable regulations.

As I recall, the Citizens United decision was SCOTUS slapping down Clinton’s attempt to suppress the publication of political material she didn’t like. Her position, basically, was that commenting on the behavior of politicians — exercising our First Amendment rights — in election season ought to be illegal.

This woman thinks there are no individual rights. The only right she asserts is the right of “localities and states and the federal government” to create restrictions on American citizens. All for your own good, of course.

Folks, this is what fascism looks like. We CAN NOT let this woman or any other progressive Democrat authoritarian occupy the White House.

Citizens United had nothing to do with Hillary trying to quash speech. Instead, it had to do with whether corporations (big money lenders) had a right to make donations to political campaigns. The Supreme Court held that they do, an opinion with which Obama disagreed in a State of the Union speech as it permits big money to massively influence if not control political outcomes that favored them. In other words, it could be argued that Citizens United, by allowing essentially unlimited donations, legalized political bribery to the detriment of the common voter.

No, Citizens United put corporations ( and corporate officers) on the same playing field as any citizen, focus group, union, news outlet, special interest groups. Where does the notion origiate that corporate entities should be locked out of the political system that can put them out of business with a mere regulation? Part of McCain-Fienberg (sp?) were restrictions for everyone but unions and news outlets to criticize an incumbent politician withing, I think, 60 days of an election. And, in case no one noticed, the millions and millions of dollars spent by the losing 16 Republican candidates could not buy an election. Just ask Steve Forbes about the personal $250 million he spent trying to run for office.

No matter who or what contributes to politicians, the expectation is the politician, once elected, will honor those donations through favorable legislation concerning whichever hot item is on the mind of the donor.

I’ll ignore the fact that you began your post with the word no without refuting anything in mine and just post this summary from the SCOTUS Blog:

Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast.

I’m not sure where we are, now. My “No” was shorthand for “No, your conclusion about unfair, inordinate, or overwhelming influence by non-persons (corporations) flooding the political process with money is incorrect.” Which is all based on reading your commentary as being opposed to corporations having the same first amendment rights as humans. If I misread your comment, my apologies, and I retract my response.

Why this focus on the Second Amendment. Hillary doesn’t believe in any of the first 10 Amendments. She got fired from the Senate Watergate Committee for trying to deny Richard Nixon his constitutional rights.

I’m thinking that I am going to start a campaign to TAKE AWAY the right of freedom of speech for those who do not support my right to keep and bear arms.
Your right to free speech IS CONDITIONAL to my right to keep and bear arms.
I am going to work just vigorously to take away their right, just as much as they work to take away my right.
I may lie, cheat, and steal just like they do.

Part of Trump’s actual campaign is to violate the First and Third Amendments for entire ethnicities and religions and deport “political dissenters” and people that don’t fit into his vision of a glorious white empire. He’s even backpedaling on the Second Amendment and half of you are lining up just to blow him. I hate Hillary too but at least have some perspective and recognize your own biases. The last four years should have demonstrated to all of you that both parties are worthless and it’s futile to try to stick to either party line: We’re all going to get screwed, it’s just an issue of where and when.

So what are you going to do? Are you going to vote for Hillary because Trump is potentially bad, thereby choosing your fate instead of having it (potentially) foisted upon you? I suppose choosing the time and place you’ll be killed is better than thinking it could happen any day and wondering all the time. Oh wait. No, it’s not. We all drive every day despite being basically convinced there are people on the road with us that seem to want to kill us.

Or are you going to just abstain from the process entirely, so you can feel safe in inaction? Like never leaving your house to avoid driving? Sure, you won’t die behind the wheel, but you’ll die anyway eventually, and if you’re stuck at home, nobody will know for weeks, and your cat will eat your face.

I’d rather drive (vote), take my chances on the future, and to hell with the cat.

Edit: This really wasn’t meant as a direct reply to Stephen J (unless it applies). It’s more directed at the folks like TravisP, who “won’t vote for an unprincipled man.”

The writer of this post is part of the problem IMO. There is no such thing as a “Constitutional right ” to bear arms. This is complete nonsense. It is a natural right, not a Constitutional right, the government does not give or allow citizens to bear arms. Birth and citizenship do. The second amendment clearly states that the government can and will not infringe on that natural right.

A “Constitutional Right ” is a right that has been guaranteed or granted by the Constitution and cannot be violated by Congress (or the states if applied to them also).

Some of those rights, like the right to self-defense, are natural rights. These types of rights are guaranteed, not granted, by the Constitution.

Some rights, like prohibitions of bills of attainder and ex post facto laws, are entirely created by man and the rights are granted by the Constitution. Bills of attainder were perfectly legal in the US until 1787 and perfectly legal in England since about 1300. There was no natural right against bills of attainder.

The author’s wording was correct. The right to keep and bear arms is a right protected by the Constitution in the Second Amendment, hence it is a Constitutional Right.

If you want to be semantically precise, you could say they’re constitutionally protected natural rights.

I usually prefer to talk about civil rights — it’s accurate, because whether natural/God-given or created by the Constitution’s legal authority, they’re all also civil rights. And it confuses the progressives. If the subject of guns comes up, I simply say that I’m a passionate supporter of ALL of our civil rights, and look at them like I’m wondering why they don’t believe in civil rights. They usually don’t know what to say after that.

“And there was no argument until then that localities and states and the federal government had a right — as we do with every amendment — to impose reasonable regulations.”

There it is….government at all levels have “a right” to regulate the constitutionally protected freedoms of individuals. The central government that is constrained by the constitution has a natural, civil and legal “right” to determine which and how much constraint will be allowed. Game. Set. Match.

Those numbers can’t be correct.
90% of want restrictions and 75% of gun owners want restrictions. At 330 million people and 165 million of them are gun owners (50% is the going guesstimate), that means 297 million of all Americans want restrictions and 122 million gun owners want restrictions. Therefore, 33 million of all Americans want no restrictions and 43 million gun owners want no restrictions. How is it that more gun owners want no restrictions than total Americans? Are there 10 million non American gun owners that she’s counting? And that would also mean that every single non gun owner want restrictions.

Well, maybe you should read the Bill of Rights. To start, the Fourth Amendment right against searches and seizures is not absolute, it is a right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. The First Amendment right of freedom of speech has never been understood to be unlimited. Political speech, that which is accorded the greatest protection, is nonetheless subject to reasonable restrictions as to time, place, and manner. Some speech, such as speech intended to induce riot, or yelling fire in a crowded space when there is no fire, can be banned and criminally punished. There is no right of free speech to commit treason by communication state secrets to state enemies. There is a right of freedom of religion, but so far, that right does not include the right to perform human sacrifice, even if you are a bona fide member of a satanic cult. The Third Amendment, concerning the quartering of soldie3rs in private dwellings, is subject to the owners consent in times of peace, but in times of war it may be prescribed by law. The Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial can be, and often is waived. Article 7, the right to jury trials in civil matters, has been increased in the federal system from $20 to $75,000 by setting the latter amount as a jurisdictional requirement for suits in federal court. The Eight amendment protects against “excessive” (i.e. unreasonable) bail, meaning it is not an absolute right. Sometimes no bail is “reasonable” under the circumstances of a given case–such as when Mr. Escobar is brought to the US for trial. The Ninth Amendment has never been the subject of litigation, and in any event it is a catch-all, as is the Tenth.

So she is right as to every Constitutional right except the second. Which by the way is not taught in law school. When she went to law school, it was one of those things that just didn’t come up. And the view at that time, based on dicta in US v. Miller, was that it was a collective right, not an individual right. Technically, Miller wasn’t really a 2A case–it was a tax case, and the NFA is a taxing statute that did not ban weapons but made them just too damned expensive for most people to own. And even if the whole case was a setup, it does stand for the proposition that reasonable regulations can be imposed, not on the right to keep and bear (an issue the legislation carefully sought to avoid), but on the firearms that one wishes to keep.

I so want to see Trump light into her. I just hope he doesn’t sign some agreement on the “rules” of debate, where when she says some ridiculous thing like the “epidemic” of gun violence or some stupid remark about “automatic assault rifles” pretending to just slip a little, or that the AWB was effective etc. that Trump can’t attack her.
God I hate that bit— I hate looking at her.

I’ll see your ridiculous strawman: mail, broadcasting, and the practice of law, and raise you examples in support of the statement I actually made: time place and manner restrictions, the sidewalk in front of the post office, fighting words, defamation, speech by public employees, and obscenity.

My response, which includes links in support of my statement, is pending moderation. The short version is that you’re wrong; your response is a strawman; and First Amendment jurisprudence does allow reasonable restrictions on speech.

Suffice it to say. She has been surrounded by top shelf heavily ARMED security for many years. A new book coming out by a former Clinton Secret Service Agent will only reinforce the elitist snob and arrogant ass she is.

As far as her remarks on the 2nd Amend. I hoist tall and proud a middle finger to you failed miserable coughing statist.

You can’t have them, I’m not registering a damn thing, and you can piss up a rope.

Like I said, decorum holds me back from what I really want to say. Thank you for the vent.

Between Trump and Hillary, Trump’s the candidate who I see as most likely to brazenly ignore a Supreme Court decision. Hillary is not a great option but you’re a fool if you think Trump if on your (or ANYbody’s) side.

Hillary will restrict and push for a new AWB, stack the SCOTUS, repeal Heller, and push some Conneticut, NY, NJ, Kaliforniastan, etc,,, restrictive Constitutional 2nd Amendment Rights. Are you a paid troll?

All he is saying is that Trump is all about Trump. No surprise there. Recognizing and calling the truth does not make someone a troll.

Trump is a wildman, unpredictable. We have no idea how he will operate from moment-to-moment, now or in the future. Still….we know we have no chance the former first lady will slow the erosion of the constitution, or do anything that reinforces personal freedom for people of tradition.

I’ll admit it to myself. I’d probably vote Trump just to stop this person from taking office. And also in a salty gesture to the left as well. I can’t stand how the Bernie supporters view voting in this harpy as a better option than Trump. That’s not even CLOSE to a moral high ground.

Heck I might even vote Bernie over these two clowns. At least I can pretend he has principle, though not much.

1. I agree with most comments about the Libertarian party. They seam to be lost. I would have voted for them until I heard ex-Gov.Weld from MA. was a VP. YUP, No. As a New Englander I know that guy, ex-RINO gov. Cellucci, and our Current RINO gov. Charlie *Barker* Baker…Al them no friends of the 2nd amendment. Especially, New Gov. *The Barker* stating he was with the DemoCRAPS about put MA citizens and taxpayers on the secret “gov.no-fly list ” to make them prohibited persons. So those citizens couldn’t “apply for an FID card, or LTC “. Of course, al without due process of any kind….

2. Other Libertarian candidate, *(Weeks)* , went “nuts” on tv ….And Did a striptease Act for reporters….Yup. ..” Houston we have a problem…” That’s a no go…..

3. NO ifs or ands about it….Hillary Clinton should be in jail….Along with her criminal sidekick, Bill Clinton….

4. Hopefully, things won’t get to the point where we need “so called Civil war to fight for our rights, liberty and freedom. ..”

For everyone who is so damn gung ho about how not voting or voting for other than Trump is a vote for Clinton; you’re being quite ignorant (willfully or otherwise) about how the electoral system actually works. Many (and by that I mean most) states have such a minuscule chance of going one way or the other, that, even if every single principled person and never trumper and whatever else who was going to vote decided to vote for Trump, it still would not change the result in that state (remember, many of those states will go for Trump anyway). I suspect the vast majority of people who are saying “I will not vote Trump.” are in one of these states; if their state is hard red, its electoral votes WILL go to Trump, if they are hard blue, then they WILL go for Hillary. Why should these people vote for someone that they despise, when their vote literally has no chance of changing the outcome? Just so that YOU can feel like you’ve convinced them of something and spoiled their morality?
I’m in WA; it is hard blue for the presidential election; my vote doesn’t matter; Hillary has the electoral votes for my state tied up. I will vote for someone I don’t think is an officially undiagnosed megalomaniac or sociopath. If it comes down to less than 10000 votes difference in my state, then I’ll eat crow and be quite ashamed; anyone and everyone who likes can call me on it then and shame me all you like. I highly doubt that’s going to occur, though. And if you cool your jets for a second and think with your logic maker rather than your passion engine, I’m sure you’ll realize that what I’m saying is accurate.

Ah yes, that stupid, outdated, archaic, obscure, elitist, inconvenient road block to democracy, the Electoral College, always gets in the way. Dash it all, who needs a republic when an unfettered democracy would do?

Why do I have to get assaulted any number of times, before I am allowed to defend myself with a firearm via CCR? This is in regards to NJ, a MAY issue state.

Also anyone that understands the King’s English , which is what the SCOTUS did in Heller, by going back to the Senate arguments of September 1789, would know about the arguments that a citizen could only have a firearm if he signed up for the militia. These are patently false.

On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause: